Thursday, May 12, 2016

"If women’s wallets could talk" by Betty Yee

Growing up with my four sisters, I saw my parents struggle with their laundry and dry-cleaning
business to provide for us financially. Through their tremendous sacrifice and an ethic of saving money at a young age, regardless of how small the amount, today two of my sisters are pharmacists and two others are health-care executives. My sisters and I are fortunate women who were able to scrape by with scholarships, grants, loans, and work to put ourselves through college. Yet we know many others do not have the ability to attain financial security today because of gender inequalities.

Despite a stubborn pay disparity and an often unbreakable glass ceiling, women are driving the world’s economy. Women control 70 percent of global consumer spending, and 75 percent of women identify themselves as the primary shoppers for their households. A record 40 percent of American households now have women serving as the primary or sole breadwinners. How can women harness this consumer spending power and use it to attain financial security, especially when it is needed most, in retirement?

The majority of American women are facing a retirement security crisis. Women on average save about 7 percent of pay. Of lower-income retirees in California, 70 percent are women. Women age 65 and older living in poverty outnumber men by more than two to one. Adding to the money crunch, women at age 65 are expected to live another 19 years – three years longer than men. Single women face a greater hurdle without the added financial support of a dual-income household to pay living expenses and the cost of raising children. These sobering statistics should come as no surprise because retirement benefits are based on the accumulation of lifetime earnings.

The gender pay gap in California stands at 84 percent. A new report found that rather than the gradual improvement we have seen in the past, the gender pay gap is widening. Another reason for the disparity: more women are employed part-time and work for smaller employers less likely to offer pensions or employer-sponsored retirement plans. Closing the pay gap would not only help fund women’s retirement but would increase pay into Social Security, potentially ensuring everyone’s retirement security in the long run. ...

Read more:

Thursday, May 5, 2016

GOTV for Hillary - May 2016

We need make sure we help our members there get out the vote for Hillary!!  There are still upcoming contests and we need everyone to put aside time to CALL CALL CALL or travel if you possibly can! Anything you can do to help get out the vote will be critically important in winning more delegates to put Hillary and the Democratic Party in the strongest position possible at the convention in Philadelphia! 

You can call using the link:      

If you are able to travel in May, please fill out this form and someone from the campaign will be in touch to help you coordinate your plans.

If you can donate, please use our link – any amount $5, $10, $25, $50 and up will help us help Hillary run the campaign she needs to win.    

Here is the remaining calendar for the Democratic primaries:   

May 10
West Virginia

May 17
Kentucky (D)

Jun 3

Jun 7
New Jersey
New Mexico
North Dakota (D)
South Dakota

Jun 14
District of Columbia (D)

Monday, April 25, 2016

Pledged Delegates to Endorse Hillary Clinton

On Sunday, May 1 starting at 2:00 pm, women from across California will be running to become pledged delegates to endorse Hillary Clinton as the Democratic Nominee for President at the Democratic National Convention.

Please support our NWPC LA Westside leaders and vote at your district location listed below.  

Not sure what district you live in? Go to

CD 28 (Rep. Adam Schiff)
West Hollywood Park Auditorium
647 N. San Vicente Blvd.
West Hollywood, CA 90069

CD 33 (Rep. Ted Lieu)
Congregation Tikvat Jacob
1829 N Sepulveda Blvd
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266

CD 37 (Rep. Karen Bass)
Sibi Center Adult Day Program
2600 West 54th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90016
Cross Street: West 54th Street/4th Avenue

CD 43 (Rep. Maxine Waters)
Nakaoka Community Center
1670 West 162nd Street
Gardena, CA 90247
Cross Streets/Landmarks: West 162nd Street/Harvard Blvd

CD 44 (Rep. Janice Hahn)
SEIU Local 99
3651 E. Imperial Highway (US Bank Building)
Lynwood, CA 90262
Cross Streets/Landmarks: E. Imperial Highway/Martin Luther King Jr

Caucuses open at 2pm – you must be in line by 3pm in order to receive a ballot to vote.
Caucuses are open to registered Democrats who reside in that Congressional District.  When you arrive you will sign in, cast your ballot and you can either stay to hear speeches or you may leave. You are not required to stay for the entire caucus to cast your vote.

Voters must complete a ballot, including a public declaration that they are registered to vote as a Democrat. Voters can register or re-register to vote at the caucus – voter registration cards will be available. If a voter is not 18, but will be a registered Democratic voter before the general election (17 year-olds who will turn 18 on or before November 8), they are also eligible to vote.

Any questions? Please contact Barbi Appelquist at

Or visit for more information

Let's help get our NWPC LA Westside women to the DNC 2016 Convention in Philadelphia!

Thursday, April 21, 2016

Meet the NWPC CA Endorsed Candidates

The California Primary is only 49 days from today.
View this email in your browser

Meet the NWPC CA Endorsed Candidates!

NWPC California is honored to endorse these candidates in their races for PRESIDENT, U.S. CONGRESS, CA STATE SENATE, and CA STATE ASSEMBLY.  Please visit the candidates' websites to learn more about where they stand on the issues (especially as they relate to women).  Please CONTRIBUTE and VOLUNTEER for your local candidate.

NWPC CA is calling on all pro-choice supporters to phone bank for Hillary Clinton for President.  Click Here to learn how to get started.

Visit your local caucus' website to find out which candidates your caucus is endorsing for Local races.

U.S. President

Hillary_ClintonHillary Rodham Clinton

U.S. Congress

Doris Matsui (CD 6)
Anna Eshoo, U.S. Congress (CD 18)
Helene Schneider, U.S. Congress (CD 24)
Julia Brownley, U.S. Congress (CD 26)
Judy Chu, U.S. Congress (CD 27)
Grace Napolitano (CD 32)
Karen Bass, Congress (CD 37)
Lucille Roybal-Allard, U.S. Congress (CD 40)
Kerri Condley (CD 42)
Nanette Barragan, Congress (CD 44)
Suzanne Savary, U.S. Congress (48th CD)
Susan Davis (CD 53)

U. S. Senate

 No endorsement

State Senate

Mariko Yamada (SD 3)
Cathleen Galgiani (SD 5)
photos by Marc Thomas KallweitChallenger
Nancy Skinner (SD 9)
Jane Kim (SD 11)
Hannah-Beth Jackson (SD 19)
Phlunte Riddle, State Senate (SD 25)
Janice Kamenir-Reznik (SD 27)
Toni Atkins (SD 39)

State Assembly

Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (AD 4)
Virginia Madeno (AD 12)
Susan Talamantes Eggman (AD 13)
Mae Torlakson (AD 14)
Cheryl Cook-Kallio (AD 16)
Vicki Veenker (AD 24)
Karina Cervantes-Alejo (AD 30)
Dawn Ortiz-Legg (AD 35)
Monique Limon (AD 37)
Abigail Medina (AD 40)
Laura Friedman (AD 43)
Jacqui Irwin (AD 44)
Cheryl Brown (AD 47)
Blanca Rubio (AD 48)
Sharon Quirk-Silva (AD 65)
Lorena Gonzalez (AD 80)

Thursday, April 14, 2016

Repost of NY Times Article: The Abortion Map Today by Linda Greenhouse


The Abortion Map Today

IN his smart opinion piece last week, “A Mason-Dixon Line of Progress,” Timothy Egan noted the “retreat to bigotry” sweeping across the old South as politicians clinging to the past (under the banner of religious freedom) line up to authorize discrimination against gay people. The column prompted me to think about whether the battlegrounds in the never-ending abortion wars display a similar geographic concentration.
The answer is that to a startling degree they don’t. The battleground is much bigger. With the exception of the West Coast and most (but not all) of the Northeast, recently enacted abortion restrictions can be found almost everywhere.
Since 2011, 10 states, from the Canadian border to the Great Lakes to the Southwest, have each imposed 10 or more new barriers to access to legal abortion. An additional 21 states have enacted between one and 10 restrictions — the lower number in some cases simply reflecting a state’s creativity in having already adopted a long menu of anti-abortion measures.
It comes as no great surprise that each of the top 10 states (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Texas — only four of which were part of the Confederacy) is headed by a Republican governor. Politics — political culture — outweighs geography.
The Supreme Court is now considering a Texas law that imposes unnecessary and unattainable requirements on abortion clinics in the name of protecting women’s health. The requirements that clinic doctors obtain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and that the clinics retrofit themselves as small hospitals threatens to force most of the state’s remaining clinics to close. The eight justices heard the case,Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, last month. It’s unclear both whether they will be able to decide it, and if they can, how a decision will affect other kinds of anti-abortion laws.
Some of what’s been happening in states scattered around the country come under the “you couldn’t make this up” category. There’s the Wisconsin law, struck down by a federal appeals court, that gave doctors a July weekend to put their hospital admitting privileges into compliance.
There’s the bill that Indiana’s governor, Mike Pence, signed last month requiring cremation or burial for aborted or miscarried fetuses. (At the gestational age when most abortions occur, the fetus is about the size of a grape.) Women have been mocking the law by calling Governor Pence’s office to let him know that their menstrual periods have arrived on time. National Review, deploring that protest as “silly,” reassured its readers that “the clear intent of the law is not to jail women who miscarry; it’s to discourage abortion.”
And then there’s Iowa, where the state Board of Medicine in 2011 authorized doctors to use videoconferencing to dispense the medication that induces abortion in early pregnancy. Under this “telemedicine” system, with a procedure developed by Planned Parenthood, a nurse performs an ultrasound examination, which the doctor views over a video link to determine the stage of pregnancy. If satisfied that a medication abortion is appropriate, the doctor sends a remote command that opens a drawer containing the pills.
The medical board’s action, aimed at providing increased access to abortion at lower cost, was controversial. Among those urging the board to reject the procedure was a prominent Catholic priest, Msgr. Frank Bognanno. After Iowa’s Gov. Terry Branstad used a recess appointment to place Monsignor Bognanno on one of the board’s three seats reserved for non-physicians, the board promptly reversed itself and barred the telemedicine procedure. Seventeen other states have done the same. (The Iowa Supreme Court ruled last June that the prohibition violated the right to abortion as understood by the Iowa Constitution. Noting that the state medical board had approved telemedicine in other settings, the court said that “the board appears to hold abortion to a different medical standard than other procedures.”)
But of all these states, Arizona wins the prize. On March 31, Gov. Doug Ducey signed a bill forbidding doctors who prescribe the abortion medication mifepristone to deviate from the Food and Drug Administration’s specifications that were in effect as of last Dec. 31. Those specifications, issued in 2000 when the agency first approved mifepristone, required a 600-milligram dose and restricted the drug’s use to the first seven weeks of pregnancy.
With doctors having prescribed millions of doses of mifepristone since 2000, it became apparent that one-third of the original dose was equally effective with fewer side effects, and that the drug was safe and effective for up to 10 weeks of pregnancy rather than seven. These “off-label” uses became standard medical practice, endorsed by leading medical organizations; doctors commonly refused to give the original dose, on the ground that it was not in their patients’ best interest.
As medication abortion grew in popularity — now accounting for about 40 percent of first-trimester abortions performed at Planned Parenthood clinics, for example — the dosage issue became a handy target of anti-abortion activism. States began to require doctors to adhere to the original label, knowing that doctors would feel ethically obliged to stop administering medication abortion rather than comply. Arizona was one of the early adopters of this strategy with a 2012 law that required adherence to the F.D.A. label. In 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, describing the medical grounds for the state’s law as “nonexistent,” issued an injunction against its enforcement.
That ruling, Planned Parenthood of Arizona v. Humble, was not a final judgment, and the State Legislature was determined to keep trying. The bill Governor Ducey signed was the product of the latest effort. But on March 30, the day before the bill signing, the F.D.A. announced that after 10 months of study, it was revising the label to reflect the evidence accumulated through actual medical practice: a 200-milligram dose, to be administered during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy.
Recall that the Arizona bill specified not just adherence to the F.D.A. label, but adherence to the label that existed last Dec. 31. Unfazed, Governor Ducey signed it anyway. “Some changes may need to be made in a later bill,” he said.
While a half-dozen other states have required adherence to the F.D.A. label (while not interfering with the “off-label” uses that doctors commonly make of other drugs), Arizona’s legislators are the only ones, as far as I know, to take measures to assure that a regulatory change in Washington would not render their efforts useless. There is no doubt that the courts will quickly dispose of the newly signed law, surely one of the more cynical political acts in this cynical season.
The new F.D.A. label should bring down the curtain on a fascinating and revealing episode in the abortion wars. I don’t know who first came up with the idea of requiring adherence to the old label; I do know thatmodel legislation under the title of “Abortion-Inducing Drugs Safety Act” was drafted several years ago and made available to the states by the influential Americans United for Life.
What accounts for opponents’ focus on medication abortion? After all, the procedure is limited to the first trimester, as opposed to the later-trimester abortions that would seem to be more obvious targets for legislative energy. (Gov. Gary Herbert of Utah just signed a lawrequiring doctors to administer anesthesia to women undergoing abortions at 20 weeks, on the unproven and disputed theory that fetuses feel pain at that stage.)
The F.D.A.’s decision two weeks ago hardly went unobserved, but it didn’t make quite the splash I would have expected. Maybe that’s because the abortion-rights side is so accustomed to the dreary drumbeat of bad news that it’s hard to fully assimilate good news when it comes. As for the pro-life side, its legislative strategy could really work only as a subterfuge, a claim that legislators were really doing their level best for women. In the clear light of day, it’s not easy even for the most abortion-hostile politician to stand up and declare that doctors should be required by law to give three times the evidence-based dose of medicine, any medicine.The answer is apparent: Medication abortion promises the ultimate in women’s empowerment and privacy. No need for a fancy facility (although Texas, its motives as transparently shameless as ever, requires clinics that provide only medication abortions to meet the same physical standards as those providing surgical abortion). No need for a doctor’s presence. No pickets or gauntlet of “sidewalk counselors” urging women to turn back.
Or maybe the muted response reflects a kind of shock: While everyone was looking in the other direction, waiting with hope or fear for the Supreme Court to deliver its next word on abortion, the Obama administration moved with discretion and precision to fix a particular problem. Just one piece of a bigger problem, to be sure, but the result is a changed landscape for abortion access — east, west, north and south.


Return To Homepage